Overcrowding - are redundant LHCS and HST sets the answer?

[AM9]

No, I understand the point completely. But in fact enforcement has not (judging the present situation) enforced minds sufficiently and we have late delivery of schemes and/or new trains and consequent cancellations, short forming and so on. Yes - minds should have been focussed and stock and schemes planned with enough contingency (so, early enough) to ensure compliance.

But they apparently were not and no rules nor regulations nor idealism can change that. One thing nobody can do is alter history. This have happened as they have and we are now in a situation that cannot be re-written; a situation where shortage of compliant stock (not stock per se) has an effect.

The only question is not what should have happened; it is what (if anything) can be done now to mitigate the fact that it did not. And that's where dogged adherence to rules has absolutely no positive effect.

Enforcement, (along with draconian penalties for failure to take action) will focus minds, sharpen the attention of detached parent companies and ultimately bring the DfT's laissez fire attitude to the notice of the electorate. If the law is ignored, there will be many test cases brought by representative of those affected and given the very long period that the industry has had to plan and act, an independent court is unlikely to be swept along with claims such enforcement having no 'positive effect'. Is there any other long standing legislation that you think should be ignored because it inconveniences some 'normals'?

 

[HSTEd]

Enforcement, (along with draconian penalties for failure to take action) will focus minds, sharpen the attention of detached parent companies and ultimately bring the DfT's laissez fire attitude to the notice of the electorate. If the law is ignored, there will be many test cases brought by representative of those affected and given the very long period that the industry has had to plan and act, an independent court is unlikely to be swept along with claims such enforcement having no 'positive effect'. Is there any other long standing legislation that you think should be ignored because it inconveniences some 'normals'?

I'm not entirely sure you should want to focus public attention on this issue.
I don't think opinions will necessarily turn the way you want them to.

It doesn't matter if a court beileves it has positive effect when the Court cannot withstand the will of Parliament.

 

[Harpers Tate]

@AM9. No and, again, that's not the point. What will (or may) happen in future has, cannot have, any effect on the past nor on the situation we are in as a consequence of what has already happened.

 

[AM9]

@AM9. No and, again, that's not the point. What will (or may) happen in future has, cannot have, any effect on the past nor on the situation we are in as a consequence of what has already happened.

Not sure where you get the impression I said anything about events now or in the future having an effect on the past. That would invove time travel, overcrowded trains or not.

 

[Llanigraham]

Enforcement, (along with draconian penalties for failure to take action) will focus minds, sharpen the attention of detached parent companies and ultimately bring the DfT's laissez fire attitude to the notice of the electorate. If the law is ignored, there will be many test cases brought by representative of those affected and given the very long period that the industry has had to plan and act, an independent court is unlikely to be swept along with claims such enforcement having no 'positive effect'. Is there any other long standing legislation that you think should be ignored because it inconveniences some 'normals'?

You seem to be ignoring a couple of very important words that are used in the Regulations, "where possible" and "where practical". I have seen both of those used in cases where disabled access arguments have attempted to force people into altering access to buildings, and each time they have failed to make the building owners make alterations, because it wasn't possible or practical to do so. Exactly the same reasoning could easily be used by ToC's; they only have to prove that there aren't enough suitable trains available but that they are trying to rectify the matter.

And if you really want to push this to it's extreme don't forget that the ToC's could turn round and just cancel those journeys where facilities weren't available.

 

[Tio Terry]

No, I understand the point completely. But in fact enforcement has not (judging the present situation) enforced minds sufficiently and we have late delivery of schemes and/or new trains and consequent cancellations, short forming and so on. Yes - minds should have been focussed and stock and schemes planned with enough contingency (so, early enough) to ensure compliance.

But they apparently were not and no rules nor regulations nor idealism can change that. One thing nobody can do is alter history. This have happened as they have and we are now in a situation that cannot be re-written; a situation where shortage of compliant stock (not stock per se) has an effect.

The only question is not what should have happened; it is what (if anything) can be done now to mitigate the fact that it did not. And that's where dogged adherence to rules has absolutely no positive effect.

What, if anything can be done?

Well, enforcement of the law. If a TOC wants to run non compliant stock then they need to make alternative arrangements for those that cannot use it. Maybe suitable road vehicles. Yes, there is a cost associated with that, but that is the cost the TOC’s have to pay for failing to comply with the law that they have known for years was coming. Ignoring the law - and the needs of PRM - is not an acceptable course of action.

 

[AM9]

You seem to be ignoring a couple of very important words that are used in the Regulations, "where possible" and "where practical". I have seen both of those used in cases where disabled access arguments have attempted to force people into altering access to buildings, and each time they have failed to make the building owners make alterations, because it wasn't possible or practical to do so. Exactly the same reasoning could easily be used by ToC's; they only have to prove that there aren't enough suitable trains available but that they are trying to rectify the matter.

And if you really want to push this to it's extreme don't forget that the ToC's could turn round and just cancel those journeys where facilities weren't available.

If the TOCs claim that that there aren't enough trains available, given the warning that they have had, they would have to present a robust case that they made every reasonable effort to provide them. That case would need to demonstrate that their efforts since 2010 when the act was introduced up until 21 November 2019 (over 9 years 7 months) were appropriate. A TOC that had been awarded the franchise/management contract in the intervening period would have known of the legal requirement and the date by which compliance is required, and will have included how it proposed to comply with the law within its bid submission.
Only if its attempts to secure sufficient suitable rolling stock had been thwarted by an event outside their control would a TOC have a case for non-compliance.
As Tio Terry says, there is a cost for complying with the law, - which ultimately will be borne by everybody who travels. If you, or any other of those implying that obeying the law, (or even just this law) is not essential, then lobby your mp demanding that it isn't the wish of (some of) the people. This seems to be the way that in this new populist age laws meant to benefit everybody are treated.

 

[tbtc]

I don't know why people are blaming "political correctness". This is nothing to do with political correctness. Political correctness is the modern term for what used to be called politeness, trying to avoid offensive terms, amending things like language so as not to ostracise/ demonise/ "other". Political correctness is about no longer using that phrase that was apparently acceptable in the 1970s, it's about trying to avoid stereotypes or derogatory language.

This, however, is about accessibility, which is about equality. And equality, as the law stands right now, means trying to accommodate people's needs where possible (maybe that can be accommodated by guaranteeing a taxi for people unable to board a train, but it doesn't mean ignoring people's needs).

I don't know why "political correctness" has become the phrase for anything that people don't like (?) but it's not the phrase applicable here - trying to run a railway that everyone can use is important - to call it "politically correct" suggests that it's just a politeness thing, rather than a legal requirement.

For a benchmark, look at how bus companies have scrapped marginal services, rather than continuing them with step entranced vehicles - maybe that inconveniences people but under the law that's how things have to be. Not saying it's something I wholly agree with or wholly disagree with but it's the law - got to deal with realities.

(and, to repeat myself, if TPE weren't able to replace 185s with old loco hauled stock before the 1 January 2020 deadline kicked in then there's probably no chance that TOCs will be able to replace accessible trains with inaccessible ones after the deadline - it's a nice idea - I like the nostalgic notion of keeping old trains running - but that's not the way that the law works)

 

[AM9]

It'

I don't know why people are blaming "political correctness". This is nothing to do with political correctness. Political correctness is the modern term for what used to be called politeness, trying to avoid offensive terms, amending things like language so as not to ostracise/ demonise/ "other". Political correctness is about no longer using that phrase that was apparently acceptable in the 1970s, it's about trying to avoid stereotypes or derogatory language.

This, however, is about accessibility, which is about equality. And equality, as the law stands right now, means trying to accommodate people's needs where possible (maybe that can be accommodated by guaranteeing a taxi for people unable to board a train, but it doesn't mean ignoring people's needs).

I don't know why "political correctness" has become the phrase for anything that people don't like (?) but it's not the phrase applicable here - trying to run a railway that everyone can use is important - to call it "politically correct" suggests that it's just a politeness thing, rather than a legal requirement.

For a benchmark, look at how bus companies have scrapped marginal services, rather than continuing them with step entranced vehicles - maybe that inconveniences people but under the law that's how things have to be. Not saying it's something I wholly agree with or wholly disagree with but it's the law - got to deal with realities.

(and, to repeat myself, if TPE weren't able to replace 185s with old loco hauled stock before the 1 January 2020 deadline kicked in then there's probably no chance that TOCs will be able to replace accessible trains with inaccessible ones after the deadline - it's a nice idea - I like the nostalgic notion of keeping old trains running - but that's not the way that the law works)

It's not only 'political correctness' that is misused, there's the frequently inappropriate 'health and safety' expression blurted out, which some of its users seem to think that it puts them on some higher moral ground in a discussion. Ignoring inconvenint legislation that some see doesn't benefit them contributes nothing to their arguments and shows a lack of appreciation of the way our society is gradually trying to improve the lot of those, who through no fault of themseves find their ability to get around severely curtailed. It is partly because of the belief by some that the law can be sidestepped for their convenience, that those laws were put in place.

 

[duffield]

If the TOCs claim that that there aren't enough trains available, given the warning that they have had, they would have to present a robust case that they made every reasonable effort to provide them. That case would need to demonstrate that their efforts since 2010 when the act was introduced up until 21 November 2019 (over 9 years 7 months) were appropriate. A TOC that had been awarded the franchise/management contract in the intervening period would have known of the legal requirement and the date by which compliance is required, and will have included how it proposed to comply with the law within its bid submission.
Only if its attempts to secure sufficient suitable rolling stock had been thwarted by an event outside their control would a TOC have a case for non-compliance.
As Tio Terry says, there is a cost for complying with the law, - which ultimately will be borne by everybody who travels. If you, or any other of those implying that obeying the law, (or even just this law) is not essential, then lobby your mp demanding that it isn't the wish of (some of) the people. This seems to be the way that in this new populist age laws meant to benefit everybody are treated.

Some TOCs if taken to court would have a very good legal argument that their hands were tied by the various failings of the DfT, e.g.such things as late franchise awards giving insufficient time to make stock compliant.

 

[AM9]

Some TOCs if taken to court would have a very good legal argument that their hands were tied by the various failings of the DfT, e.g.such things as late franchise awards giving insufficient time to make stock compliant.

I didn't say that the DfT wasn't part of the problem, so if such a defence was presented, it would be considered forensically in the controlled environment of a court rather than by half-truths and political pressure out of public view.